Back
2009 Supreme(Mad) 1525
High Court of Judicature at Madras
THE HONOURABLE MRS. JUSTICE R. BANUMATHI & THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE RAJA ELANGO
Bujji @ Subramani & Others
Versus
State rep. by Inspector of Police, Vellore District
Crl. A. No.285 of 2008
Decided on : 30-04-2009
For the Petitioners:K.S. Rajagopalan, Advocate.
For the Respondent: P. Kumaresan, Public Prosecutor (I/c).
The sufficiency of circumstantial evidence and the need for a complete and conclusive chain of circumstances to establish guilt beyond reasonable doubt.
Headnote:
Section 302 IPC - Circumstantial evidence - Extra-judicial confession - Retrial not ordered
Fact of the Case:
The appellants were convicted for an offence under Section 302 IPC based on circumstantial evidence. The prosecution alleged that the appellants, due to prior enmity, wrongfully restrained and murdered the deceased. The prosecution relied on motive, extrajudicial confession, and recovery of material objects as evidence.
Finding of the Court:
The court found that the prosecution failed to establish a complete chain of circumstances pointing to the guilt of the accused. The motive presented by the prosecution did not connect the accused with the crime. The court also noted discrepancies in the evidence related to the last seen alive theory and the extra-judicial confession. The court concluded that the circumstances relied upon by the prosecution were not fully proved and did not form a complete chain to establish guilt beyond reasonable doubt.
Issues: The issues revolved around the sufficiency of circumstantial evidence, the credibility of the extra-judicial confession, and the establishment of a complete chain of circumstances to prove guilt.
Ratio Decidendi: The court emphasized that in a case based on circumstantial evidence, the circumstances from which the conclusion of guilt is drawn must be fully proved and must form a complete and conclusive chain. The court also highlighted the importance of corroborative evidence for an extra-judicial confession and the need to establish a clear connection between the accused and the crime.
Final Decision: The court set aside the conviction of the appellants, acquitted them of the charges, and ordered the refund of the fine amount. The court did not order a retrial, emphasizing that the omission to mark the extra-judicial confession did not cause serious prejudice to the prosecution.
Raja Elango, J.
This appeal arises out of the judgment made in S.C. No. 312 of 2007 by the learned Additional District and Sessions Judge, (Fast Track Court), Vellore, convicting the appellants/accused for an offence under Section 302 IPC, and sentencing them to undergo life imprisonment and also to pay a fine of Rs.500/- each, in default, to undergo rigorous imprisonment for six months.
2. Brief facts of the prosecution case are as follows:
(i) On 21/22. 2003 mid night at about 1.00 a.m., due to prior enmity, the appellants/accused said to have been in near the field of one Karunakaran and near the sluice in between Thiruvalluvar Nagar and Kangeyanallur road leading to Vellaikkal Medu Village and with a common intention to commit the murder of the deceased Duraiarasu, who was coming on a cycle, had wrongfully restrained him and at that time accused No.3 Vadivelu attacked the deceased Duraiarasu with casuarina stick on his right leg and the 2nd accused Babu attacked the deceased with casuarina stick on his head and again attacked the deceased Duraiarasu on his back side head and while the deceased had fallen down, the appellants/accused took deceased Duraiarasu and left the cycle in the hay stack at the field of the said Karunakaran and that they are said to have pushed the deceased into the well of the said Karunakaran and that due to the said acts of the accused, the deceased died.
(ii) P.W.1 set the law in motion. On the basis of complaint (Exhibit P-1) lodged by P.W.1, case of suspicious death was registered in Cr. No. 91 of 2003 (Exhibit P-10) under Section 174 Cr.P.C.
(iii) P.W.14-Sub Inspector of Police, on 22. 2003, had taken up investigation, he inspected scene of occurrence and prepared Exhibit P-2-Observation Mahazar and Exhibit P-11-Rough Sketch. He examined the witnesses and on the same day inquest was held on the body of deceased Duraiarasu and Exhibit P-12 is the Inquest Report. On requisition from Investigating Officer, P.W.12-Dr.Sampath had conducted autopsy on the body of deceased and found the following external injuries: (i) 1” abrasion Vertex;
(ii) 1” abrasion left occipital region, parietal decomposed, Maggots flies seen all over the body. Washermen hand (N.C) seen both (N.C.) of feet and palmer hands. P.W.12 opined that the deceased would appear to have died of head injury and asphyxia due to drowning 3-4 days before autopsy and issued Exhibit P-7-Post Mortem Certificate.
(iv) In the meantime on 14. 2003, the accused 1 to 3 surrendered before the VAO, Kangeyanallur and given a confession statement. On 14. 2003, Muthamizh Mani, the Successor Inspector of Police had taken up the case for further investigation and interrogated the accused and recorded their statements. Then, Investigating Officer altered the case from suspicious death under Section 174 Cr.P.C. into Sections 341 and 302 IPC.
(v) Confession statement of first accused led to recovery of M.O.2-casurina Thadi under Exhibit P-16-Mahazar. Confession statement of second accused led to recovery of M.O.3-casuarina Thadi under Exhibit P-18-Mahazar. Confession statement of second accused led to recovery of M.O.4-casuarina Thadi under Exhibit P-20-Mahazar. P.W.15, Inspector of police, sent the recovered material objects to the concerned Judicial Magistrate. On 5. 2003, the 4th accused surrendered before the Judicial Magistrate, Vellore P.W.15 taken on custody of the 4th accused, and reorded his confession statement. Confession statement of second accused led to recovery of M.O.5-casuarina Thadi under Exhibit P-22-Mahazar.
(vi) Upon receipt of chemical analysis report (Exhibit P-23 & 24) and on 30.7.2003 completion of investigation final report was filed against the accused for the offences under Sections 341 and 302 IPC.
(vii) To substantiate the charges against the accused in the trial Court, P.Ws.1 to 15 were examined and Exhibits P-1 to P-24 and M.Os.1 to 9 were marked. Accused were questioned about the incriminating circumstance and evidenc
